Foundation repair

Part I
BY ROBERT WADE BROWN,
MARTIN PRAGER
AND JOE JANSEN.

he success of any concrete

T foundation repair job de-

pends upon the ability of
the contractor who does the
job. If properly executed, founda-
tion repair can almost always be
considered permanent.
These conclusions are drawn
from data collected during a 41⁄2-year
period from some 380 residential
foundation repair jobs in the Dallas,
Texas, area. The data indicates that
proper foundation repair tech-
niques will always be successful
provided the contractor under-
stands the chemical and physical
behavior of the local soil con-
stituents and exhibits reasonable
perseverance.
The Dallas test program involved
two types of foundations: pier and
beam; and slab on grade.

Slab leveling
All slab foundations were leveled
by controlled pressure injection of
either a soil-lime-cement or a soil-
cement grout beneath the slab. The
foundation was thereby literally
“floated” to proper grade. A side
benefit of this technique is soil sta-
bilization. In critical areas the lime
and/or cement content of the grout
can be increased and the methods
altered to provide deeper soil pene-
tration and treatment.
Repair to pier-and-beam founda-
tions was achieved by mechanically
raising the exterior beam to proper
grade and holding it there by instal-
lation of specially designed spread
footings. Interior floor areas were
leveled by shimming on existing in-
terior concrete piers.
Pumping equipment required for slab foundation leveling.
To avoid foundation repair—or
perhaps because of a simple lack of
understanding—many homeown-
ers will fill in initial cracks that ap-
pear as a relief of stress caused by
foundation movement. Then when
the foundation is restored to grade,
the free space required to absorb
the re-leveling movement is absent
and new cracks may appear (imme-
diately or in subsequent weeks).
Howe ve r, rarely do they re p re s e n t
any significant structural problem.
When a foundation beam settles,
the induced stresses create a ten-
dency for outside brick to crack and
pull out from the wall. Restoring the
beam to grade will normally correct
this problem. If the foundation
movement has been severe or al-
lowed to persist for a long period,
brick mortar or other foreign mat-
ter lodging between the brick ve-
neer and sheathing sometimes pre-
vent the normal return of the wall.
The results may then be a level
foundation with an unsightly finish.
Even with the best possible repair
and technology, a certain responsi-
bility for maintenance remains with
the property owner for which he
should be aware. There must be
provision for adequate displace-
ment of surface water and location
of down spouts. (Any drainage
problem that causes water to collect
or stand against the foundation
should be corrected.) Location of
aesthetic vegetation should be con-
trolled.
The property owner should also
consider the problem that tree and
plant roots can cause, either by ex-
erting pressure against the founda-
tion or by absorbing water from the
bearing soil, creating a drying action
that causes settlement.
Remedial action
In any event, once movement has
occurred, remedial action is neces-
sary: the particular technique de-
pends upon individual circum-
stances.
Portions of a foundation often
move while other areas remain al-
most stationary, thus creating the
tendency for partial repair. Howev-
er, the result can be a stabilized sec-
tion with unrepaired areas that are
free to move. This magnifies any
movement which later occurs in the
u n re p a i red section. Future move-
ment, consequently, can produce
stresses that are tra n s p o rt e d
through the structure to the newly
repaired section. This tends to give
the erroneous impression that pre-
vious repairs have failed when, in
fact, the unrepaired section is at
fault.
Re-dos
As the data in Table I reflect, re-
dos sometimes occur. He re the
contractor makes an initial repair
that, for one reason or another,
must be tempered, repeated or
supplemented.
The causes of re-dos are many.
The largest factor, of course, is in-
competency on the part of the re-
pair contractor. Fortunately, this is
a problem that can be eliminated by
careful investigation of the firm se-
lected to perform the work.
Also, for example, assume that a
foundation is adequately and profi-
TABLE I
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FOUNDATION REPAIR
Type Number Number
Foundation Jobs Re-dos
Slab 285 15(5.3%)
Pier & Beam 95 3(3.2%)
Totals 380 18(4.7%)
a. All three pier-and-beam and six slab foundations were cases of partial repair.
Five additional slabs were logically explained.
b. The causes of these four slab re-dos could not be definitely established; how-
ever, after re-do the foundations have remained stable.
ciently prepared. Later a water leak
develops and forces a saturation or
washout of the bearing soil. Either
instance can produce a new appear-
ance of the foundation problem.
Saturation, which can produce
bearing soil upheaval, usually devel-
ops from sewer leaks or slow pres-
sure leaks. Associated failures can
usually be precluded if the bearing
soil is properly stabilized during
foundation repair. The option for
soil stabilization generally lies with
the property owner. Often, simply to
save a few dollars, an owner will
forego the security of soil stabiliza-
tion, especially if foundation fail-
ures are not particularly common in
his area.
The occurrence of washout is im-
possible to anticipate and difficult,
or at least impractical, to guard
against. Fortunately, the frequency
of washout is limited. In the 380 cas-
es studied in Dallas, the re c u r re n t
foundation problem caused by
washout failed to appear. Howe ve r,
s e ve ral commercial projects were
encountered where water lines part-
ed and the flow eroded large vol-
umes of bearing soil from beneath
concrete slabs, thus causing the
foundations to settle.
Anytime a slab foundation re-
quires a gross raise over approxi-
mately 4 inches, the probability of a
re-do increases. The Dallas study in-
dicates this situation is not com-
mon, perhaps because technology
Explaineda Unexplainedb
11(3.9%) 4(1.4%)
3(3.2%) 0(0.0%)
14(3.7%) 4(1.4%)
permits a near-exact estimate of the
shrinkage of a known configuration
of grout. Under a normal raise, any
error in estimating the shrinkage is
insignificant—a direct percentage
of the vertical grout thickness. How-
e ve r, such preciseness is not nor-
mally possible in situations that re-
quire extreme raises. On raises of 4
inches or more, at some points the
vertical grout thickness might (and
probably does) approach 12 inches.
Raises of this magnitude are fairly
common and represent a possible
re-do.
Partial repairs
Partial repairs are another princi-
pal factor contributing to re-dos.
The Dallas statistics emphasize this
factor beyond its proper proportion
because of the imposed procedure
for compiling data and because the
job statistics fail to reflect the high
percentage of successful partial re-
pair. The statistics reflect situations
where new work on the same house
is categorized as re-do. This proba-
bly accounted for 4 or 5 of nine par-
tials reported as re-dos.
Table I presents the data collected
from repair of the 380 foundations
compiled over a 4 1/2-year period.
According to our best knowledge,
these jobs were ultimately 100 per-
cent successful. Certain instances
required attention subsequent to
the initial repair. Of the 380 jobs, the
Texas firm was asked to return on a
total of 18. These were subdivided
as follows:
1. Nine were partials. These de-
scribe instances where only part of a
foundation was initially re p a i re d ,
and represent a condition theoreti-
cally conducive to recurrence of
foundation movement. This, plus
the fact that several of these re-dos
were actually new contracts on ar-
eas not previously repaired, encour-
ages us to disregard the nine from
statistics as re-dos. This resolves our
consideration from 18 to only 9.
2. The firm also established that
new water leaks produced upheaval
in one case (previously repaired for
settlement). In another instance the
foundation raise was in excess of 5
inches and therefore likely to re-
quire subsequent attention. (In ex-
treme raises allowance for the
shrinkage of the grout becomes a
factor to consider. Because of this,
one could normally expect to top-
out the grout. Through technology,
much has been done to eliminate
this problem.) Two re-dos invo l ve d
situations where, after repair, the
houses were left vacant for about six
months which included a hot dry
summer; further, in both cases im-
proper drainage was not corrected.
Another re-do resulted from the fail-
ure of a home-owner to correct a se-
rious drainage problem. These ac-
count for 5 of the remaining 9.
3. The four remaining were con-
sidered unexplained. That is, no log-
ical explanation could be developed
for the failures.
Ne g a t i ve l y, one might conclude
that the history represents 9 re-dos
out of 380 jobs (2.4 percent). Realis-
tically, as outlined in preceding
p a ra g ra p h s, the data reflects 4 re-
dos out of 380 (1.1 percent). The re-
ally important fact is that out of 380
jobs all were ultimately successful.
Most re-dos involve only a grade
perfection of 1⁄4-inch or less. They re-
late only to a limited area of the
foundation (usually a corner) and
occur most often within 15 to 60
days after the foundation has been
restored. Most problems develop
before 30 days and it is recommend-
ed that remodeling or interior re-
pairs be delayed at least 30 days af-
ter restoration.
Isolating the pier-and-beam sta-
tistics from the slab data shows that
the slabs required 2.1 percent
greater total re-dos. The pier and
beam reflect about the same “ex-
plained,” but a much more favor-
able “unexplained,” 0 percent. Slab
repair (mud-jacking) requires con-
siderably more on-the-job skill and
competency than pier and beam
(mechanical). This introduces a hu-
man influence which might distort
the comparison of technique.
The pier and beam re p re s e n t e d
only about one-fourth the total jobs
considered. All the data are statisti-
cal. In the next 380 jobs the data
could develop more unexplained
pier and beam than slab. This then
might tend to equate the percent-
ages.
The data from the Dallas study es-
tablished that foundation problems
can be permanently corrected. The
technique is extremely important
and might, in fact, be the controlling
factor. Howe ve r, a substantial part
of this technique involves proper
treatment of the particular soil. The
key then would be to interpolate
proven procedure in one area to
other locales.
The remedial techniques used in
this study have been employe d
with success over a wide area cov-
e ring most of Te x a s, and parts of
Louisiana, Oklahoma and
Arkansas.
This is the first installment of a two-
part article on foundation repair. The
second portion will appear in a future
issue.
PUBLICATION#C710283
Copyright © 1971, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved